Trailblazers pay 'in blood' for legal action on rights

Employers must be flexible enough to accommodate their workers' family responsibilities or risk legal action, lawyers are warning after women successfully took their bosses to court.

The law protecting working women's rights has become considerably clearer over the past year following a series of legal victories by trailblazers who took on their companies.

Maternity leave entitlements and work arrangements while children are young were the hot issues for the women, some of whom are still fighting in court after appeals by their employers.

Sandra Escobar extended her six-month maternity leave by two months in mid-2000 because she was having trouble weaning her daughter Daneesha.

But when she turned up for work her full-time position as a payroll and accounts clerk with a Sydney firm, Rainbow Printing, had been filled, and her boss rejected her suggestion that she work part-time. Ms Escobar felt she had no choice but to take her employer to court.

In July a federal magistrate, Rolf Driver, found Ms Escobar had suffered discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities.

Sian Ryan, of Turner Freeman Solicitors, who specialises in employment and discrimination law, says the decisions are a warning to employers that they must seriously consider reasonable requests for flexible work arrangements.

But Moira Rayner, acting Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commissioner, warns that legal advances are "written in the blood of the women" who run the cases.

Employers often have the resources to lodge appeal after appeal, causing long-term strain on the women's personal and professional lives.

"Unless you have got a lot of money, you can't run these cases," Ms Rayner said. "A lot of money and a terrific amount of determination."

Ms Escobar says the stress of legal action contributed to her marriage breakdown, and she cried in the witness stand under cross-examination.

"You think you can be strong about it, but you still break," said Ms Escobar, whose case was run through the Kingsford Legal Centre. "But as much as it's a headache for you, it's a headache for them [employers] and they learn not to do it again.

"I do think employers should at least discuss it [work options] rather than just say no. They have to learn to be a bit open-minded."

Other trailblazers are:

Cathy Song, a technician with Ainsworth Gaming Technology, whose hours were reduced to part-time because she took a 20-minute break each day to transfer her son from kindergarten to a carer. A federal magistrate, Kenneth Raphael, found she had been effectively dismissed, and ruled the company had discriminated against her on the grounds of family responsibilities. The company appealed and the matter was settled this month.

Cynthia Thomson, an accounts manager at Orica, who was demoted when she returned from maternity leave. Justice James Allsop of the Federal Court said she had been "somewhat arrogantly and shabbily treated" and ruled that Orica had unlawfully discriminated against her on the grounds of pregnancy.

Deborah Schou, a Hansard sub-editor in the Victorian parliament who was not allowed to work from home two days a week. Judge James Duggan, of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, said she had been denied the benefit of flexible and progressive work practices promoted in her employment agreement. The employer is seeking to appeal.